From your responses on this and other threads, SD, it seems that arguing is somewhat of a sport to you?
The JW callers certainly would make an easy target, but I guess they're asking for it if they choose to come knocking on your door.
Depends on the parallels that you perceive to sport. I do have a philosophical inclination that motivates me i.e. I believe that a large part of the problem that adversely affects many
discussions in society at large is not what people believe but how or why they believe what they do and an inability to establish common ground on how to assess information and derive conclusions
when communicating with others. If arguing is a sport for me, or whatever other word is appropriate, I am but one amongst a large field of players, and a relatively passive player at, whom are proactively seeking to assert something to convince others.
If you mean I am much more practiced than most people then sure, I agree. Depends on what you meant.
The JW's sadly are an easy target but I respect that they, like most people when they assert their views, are doing what they do from a sense of what they believe is good.
I understand your desire to make people accountable for their beliefs, but perhaps recognise that doing so can come across sometimes as unreasonably demanding.
As we meander through life, we form beliefs and opinions about many things, largely on a gradual basis of being exposed to multiple influences and expressed views, so it can be impossible to respond to a demand to provide written proof of "on what do you base that belief".
It's different from stating something as a fact when it's not. Then I'm entirely with you on a request to provide evidence.
I believe that I primarily engage in the later, some exceptions though
I don't see it as my responsibility to make people accountable for their belief's and I avoid engaging in the vast majority of posts or comments in my life that might benefit from someone asking for some substantiation. Climate change, the politics associated with it, and religion (notice I have not got involved in the religion threads on ASF despite involvement on other forums?) are topics that interest me from the context mentioned above i.e. not what we think but how we think, and I am selective in where and when I choose to ask why someone asserts something. I am very conscious of the "I believe" prefix which I also use a lot. The words we choose are important for the reason I will elaborate on later. If anyone ever feels that I have sought to unfairly ask for substantiation of a "belief" statement then let me know. If I have, then I overlooked that important aspect and certainly would not be the first time or last that I misread something. I am very selective about what I ask for regarding substantiation in that the person has made a statement or claim of fact, not belief. That may not stop me from engaging in conversation (as shown
here) but if anyone bothers to read it they will note that what I offered was not a demand for substantiation but an expression of difference about a belief. The requests for substantiation came later i.e. "I object because you are <insert favourite label>", "Ok. where?", "Go read your posts".
Sound familiar?
In that context, I can understand that being asked to substantiate something can be perceived as demanding but I also believe that that perception is substantially amplified when people avoid their responsibility to substantiate an assertion with evasion i.e. burden of proof. If a conversation can't move past agreeing on the first contested premise, especially when the most basic of requests for a source or citation can't be fulfilled, then there is a much more pertinent observation to be made about the person making the assertion than the person asking for the substantiation.
With regard to the words that we use, sometimes the choice of a word can be important. Take this example:
Who created the universe?
The question seems simple enough but before answering it, I would seek to validate and define three of the words used. This will often lead to evasion and accusations of pendentry, troll, nit picking, demanding, education, mental faculties, etc. or some other such label without reference to the validity of the intent, nor the veracity of the point actually being made. In this example, "who" implies that there is an agent that needs to be identified, "created" implies that the universe had to be created, and "universe" needs to be defined i.e. some models postulate that what we call the universe is not a complete description of the universe such that while "create" is a valid term in this context i.e. big bang, it does not imply that there was "nothing" "before" it in the colloquial sense requiring a creation
ex nihlo ergo requiring a creator ergo requiring an agent, hence god. "Nothing" is another word that requires agreement regarding what it means and how it came be used before revisiting the question. As is "before" in that asking the question "what was before the big bang" may be analogous to asking "what is north of the north pole".
Many of these details are beyond what people seek to ask or know, and I have no problem with that. But it does factor into what basilio referred to in another thread (from memory) as framing. In the setting of a public arena, or sports field, where people are making these assertions, I do not automatically accept labels such as hysteria and panic without question because that sets the context in the same manner as "Who created the universe". These questions do not mean there is no god, or a creator, or that there is no hysteria or panic, but an inability to have effective discussions about these concepts underpin what I said at the start about an inability to establish common ground on how to assess information and derive conclusions when communicating with others.
Just an incidental observation. Most definitely not an indication of a wish to engage in any discussion about climate.
Understood.